Is communism, of the primitive kind, the natural state of society?

Question

No, I don't mean modern political hostility to America. I mean commitment to the Marxist principle "From each according to his ability; to each according to his need." When the first tribes of humans came down out of the trees and formed societies, the tribes which survived were those in which the hunters bringing home the game shared it with those who had not hunted with them but still needed to eat, such as the women and children.

Would the idea of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" be desirable for us to pursue today? Would it be natural for us to do so, in keeping with our basic human nature?

Answer 1

I have spent time in Papua, the Indonesian side of the island of New Guinea. These people are stone age for the most part. They are completely communal. The chief gets the best, but everyone else shares as though there is no private property. Children are cared for communally. Regardless of ability, no one has significantly more than anyone else, since to deny your excess property to another is incomprehensible. The pattern is generally true in all communal societies. On the island of Java we had to hold our helpers' excess cash, since if they had it they would have to give it to anyone who asked. The standard primitive pattern is for no one to have more than anyone else, and for anyone's burden to be equally shared. That seems to me to be human nature.

Answer 2

First I'm not so sure if I believe the first societies were primitive according to the common use of the word meaning. (stone age, tree people, fire starters) For all we know, some societies we would think primitive, may have possessed knowledge and understanding far superior than what we have today. Egyptian astronomy was amazingly advanced. The Romans had aquaducts and roads that rival any water system in any American city today, as well as any of our roads. Although we wouldn't consider Rome primitive, the point I'm making is time doesn't simply mean progress. We've made great strides in a little over 200 years, but 200 years is nothing. Imagine, we now fly. In just the last 150 years we've learned to harness the skies. Think outside the box for just a moment. Is it possible that within the last 5000 years, some other civilization discovered the battery, locomotion, and the ability to fly? Of course, we no longer have any knowledge of their discoveries, but ancient lore speaks of a city of Atlantis where the poeple could fly. Now, that is my spiel on primitivism. Now to the communist part. I think as far as primitive is concerned, primitive meaning the past and rudimentary, the family unit is the most basic, elementary unit of any society, being modern or ancient. Is the family communistic? Not so much. The family unit is patriarchal, more akin to monarchy. The parents being the King and Queen, children the subjects. That is why throughout history, so many societies have gravitated towards monarchy. The communist maxim "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" seems to work just as well within our Republican form of government. For the most part, the harder we work the more we merit, the more education we achieve, the more we merit, and if we need a great big fancy house and a garage full of cars we go out and seek it along with the family shrink. The best form of government in my opinion is a government that allows liberty so far that the individual can attain the most amount of happiness possible without infringing upon the liberty and individuality of any other citizen. I feel Republican government does for the most part a better job of this than marxist communism, but it would take too much time for me to go into all the reasons.

Answer 3

That would be a very Marxist view; one recognizing the logic behind a primitive society's need to share in order to survive. The original argument for primitive communism is based in large part on Lewis Morgan's anthropological work, which has been placed partly aside by more modern research.

Today, there's no universally accepted theory on how all early societies developed. Most likely there were both successes and failures amongst primitive communists, anarchists, and materialists.

Marx did believe that as society developed it would naturally return to a communistic state. Many modern peoples (especially Capitalists) find the idea of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" abhorrent. It destroys personal incentive and replaces it with a faux human morality. It wipes away individual importance in order to cover for the incompetent.

Given that basic human nature seems to be to provide for individual survival first, rather than to form social groups, one might argue that Marx had only identified a portion of historical development and not some deeper human nature.

Answer 4

No, it is not the natural state of society. Society doesn't have a natural state, except as determined by the actual resource situation, history, and individual persons alive.

You are misled if you believe that the women in early societies had no ability and only need. The women in primitive societies may not have hunted, but they likely crafted clothing and containers, and prepared food and maintained the shelters, in addition to the essential and constant work of caring for children. /aside

The trouble with applying the ideal communist principle to our world today is that our culture is built on valuing the idea of individual merit and achievement. Unless our entire cultural value system were overhauled (and that would involve reprogramming on an impossible level -- clean out the libraries, duct-tape the old men's mouths shut etc), we would find that a true communist system would be quickly taken advantage of by shrewd wolves, and the weak would be exploited, just the same as they are today. This has little to do with human nature and everything to do with cultural pattern. Patterns are due to circumstance, not nature -- we adapt to circumstance, that's our strength. Under the right circumstance, we could be fabulous communists.

I would like to agree with you -- "imagine no possessions" and all that -- but as I get older I start to see a more complex and cynical picture.

Answer 5

No.
Because human beings are naturally unequal.
The ones better at hunting got more women.
Primates already have a rudimentary society in which there are leaders and led, the dominant and the dominated.
Most likely, like chimpanzees, primitive men hunted in packs. The best organiser would be boss.

Answer 6

some people could do nicely below communism. It suits them to be in unison with others having no specific could desire to be something greater effective than area of a team serving a choose. Others won't be in a position to tolerate the shortcoming of privateness, the shortcoming of individualism, the shortcoming of possibilities to excel. Capitalism isn't basically approximately economic income and materialism. Its area of who the gamers are. that's the reason below communism those people finally end up being exterminated. that's a organic state for some adult males yet in no way all. maximum people choose the liberty to settle on how they are going to stay for themselves.

Answer 7

The first people lived in small family groups and communal living was desirable and even necessary.
Now people live in large cities and people are less willing to share with those they don't know

Answer 8

Bottom line GreEd,,,